yves0010:Schroedinger's Glory Hole: yves0010: Biblically speaking, if you do read how the Earth was created, there is room for evolution to have happened. I know I have commented on this in last weeks Evolution Vs Creation thread. But if you look at how God created Eve. It is possible that God did that for every species on Earth.

We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

I personally believe we were created in His image pre-fall into sin. And after that, though no physical changes happened on the macro scale of evolution, micro evolution did happen. We got taller, stronger and can withstand more harsh environments.

Now when he created the scale of Earth days/years to Heaven time, was he using the orbital and rotational velocities of Earth when it was first created, during times of immense turbulence when momentum was added to the moving body, or our current standard time lengths that were in effect when the group of religious and political hustlers made all that shiat up?

Dr Dreidel: yves0010: We humans were the last things created by God on the 6th day. Now the issue many people have is that one word at the end, day. There is a passage in the Bible that says something along the lines as a day in Heaven is like 10,000 years on Earth. The idea is that God himself created everything and guided life to how it is now a days. Using a from of creation of create the other creatures we see today.

The Bible (Genesis) also has night coming before day (which is why in Judaism, the calendar day starts with sunset). Also, the sun/moon were not created until Day 4, making the marking/passage of time...difficult to mark for the fi ...

No, you missed my point. No god would even use the concept of a day because it is only relevant to beings on rotating bodies. What would beings on a tidally locked body say about days? Also, if god is supposed to be omnipresent, he is everywhere at once, including both sides of a non tidally locked body. How is he/she supposed to understand the concept of a day which only exists in the conscience of creatures that evolved in a world that has days. Also if god existed before the observable universe came into existence, then he created everything before time existed, yet he always has a perfect understanding on the intricacies of it, even if his followers only tenuously so. You are a delusional idiot that has no practical understanding of science but want to appear open minded enough so that people will at least call you on your bullshiat politely "because you're trying." Grow the fark up.

Not only can we not know what frame of reference God uses, but we cannot know if God sees time as a linear unidirectional dimension. For all we know, God can see all of time at once.

Which lends credence to the idea that the book was written largely allegorically (especially when it comes to descriptions of god) so that people could understand it. Things like what "a day" means in the Genesis context (when there was no way to measure time), things like "if god has no physical form, why do Biblical authors reference the 'hand' or 'arm' of god?"

// the explanation I got to the free will problem is that god sees all of "time" as a tapestry

There is a difference between ignorant and stupid. Being ignorant shows a lack of knowledge, but the potential to gain it. Being stupid not only shows a lack of knowledge, but the inability to ever learn it.

Obviously we look at most stupid people as those having low IQs, which results in an inability to memorize facts and understand their meaning. But I'd argue that it also includes people so close minded that they refuse to learn. They're intellectually stunted. That counts as stupid in my book.

Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

To be precise, the superfamily Hominoidea includes all of those living species, and several genera of extinct apes. The living non-human apes are not evolving into humans- they are evolving, but humans are not a "goal" toward which the other species are striving. (You know this, of course, I'm just adding it for completeness.) Some of the extinct Hominoids are ancestral to humans, while others are not- they are instead "cousins of our ancestors."

The person to which you are replying is not willing or able to engage in reasonable or informed discussion, but the fact is that humans are apes, and apes are mammals. If we want to use the colloquial definition of "reptiles," then mammals are a subset (descendants of Synapsida) of Reptilia, since some extinct reptiles are more closely related to mammals than they are to other reptiles. And if we use the colloquial definition of "fish," then all of the amniotes are a sub-set of fish as well, since the amniote tetrapods are all vertebrates, and the bony, jawed fish (also vertebrates) are more closely related to the terrestrial tetrapods than they are to the Agnatha and Chondrichthyes.

None of that has anything to say about the actions, operations, and/or existence of any supernatural entities, of course.

Even children instinctively know that Darwin's theory of big bang evolution does not account for our unintentional creation in the "magical puddle of mud" Darwin proposed.

I always find it amazing that even from a very young age kids KNOW that God exists, exists in a state of absolute isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation.

Dinjiin:Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

If you knew it was true, then wouldn't you try and do your job and farking teach them?

Many teachers could have asked me if I thought certain things they were going to teach me were inherently false and I would have said yes. For some of these students, it could be the first time they actually had someone challenge the pure creationists evolution is bull doctrine. As shut out as that side of the culture is, some farkers in this thread are similarly as shut out that some of them can learn that their faith and this theory can co-exist. Or at least farkers aren't reading the article. But that would NEVER happen.

Dr Dreidel:ghall3: For those literal bible interpreters I like to ask them about the flood and how there was enough food for all the animals to re-populate considering many of them are natural predators of each other. I know there are a lot of components missing from my argument (like plants and trees, how did they come back?)

However in college we had to argue a topic in philosophy class and creation vs evolution was the one my group got. So we brought in a chemical engineer who was also a young earth creationist and asked that question....and stumped him. He had no idea how to answer it.

/CSB

Wait, so you're telling me he can believe that a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every unclean animal and 7 pairs of clean animals in the span of a year, built an ark 300 cubits x 80 cubits x 40 cubits* - by hand, at age 600 - in preparation for a 40-day deluge (complete with ground-level hotsprings bursting for another few days or weeks after that)...but how to feed them and make sure none of them eat each other is suddenly the unanswerable question?

*if a cubit is 18", we're talking total internal volume of 285,000 ft2. If it's 24", 120,000 ft2. There were 3 floors in the ark, the bottom for refuse. You do the math on how that works.

There is a difference between ignorant and stupid. Being ignorant shows a lack of knowledge, but the potential to gain it. Being stupid not only shows a lack of knowledge, but the inability to ever learn it.

Obviously we look at most stupid people as those having low IQs, which results in an inability to memorize facts and understand their meaning. But I'd argue that it also includes people so close minded that they refuse to learn. They're intellectually stunted. That counts as stupid in my book.

Lastly, if I taught a course and a student announced on the first day that they believed my lesson plan was inherently false, I'd ask them to leave.

Personally, when that happens in my classes (which it does rather often), I view it as an opportunity to test my own ability to convey information and explain complex ideas. Typically, by the end of the quarter, the overwhelming majority of the students understand what evolution is, why it works, and how it works. (They often retain extra beliefs in supernatural phenomena that are not necessary, but at least not in conflict with the facts.) The students who choose to ignore the explanations may not be "stupid," per se, but they are choosing to remain uninformed, so they are certainly "unwise." An inability to process information is distinct from an unwillingness to do so, IMO. In some cases, it actually requires a substantial degree of intelligence, or at least intellectual creativity, to be able to be exposed to the facts and still make up excuses for rejecting the obvious conclusions. (See Michael Behe, for example.)

The real problem is insults. Athiests believe only in pure science, and believe that everyone who has a religious belief is delusional/psychotic/etc. and they have no problem saying that to people. When people get insulted, they simply shut down the logical side of their brain, and nothing can penetrate that wall. People have selective hearing/thought. Athiests fail to realize that "Darwin's theory of evolution" has the big old word theory in it, and Believers think that because it has the word theory in it that there is no merit to it. Both are clearly wrong. People cannot come together with intelligent discourse unless both parties are willing to hear the other's arguments (based in science, belief, whatever)... otherwise it's like this:

vactech:I always find it amazing that even from a very young age kids KNOW that God exists, exists in a state of absolute isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation.

Even from a young age kids KNOW santa claus exists, beyond time beyond space, beyond limitation to deliver presents to themThen we grow up and realize that was just a social construct designed to deceive us.

thecpt:Many teachers could have asked me if I thought certain things they were going to teach me were inherently false and I would have said yes. For some of these students, it could be the first time they actually had someone challenge the pure creationists evolution is bull doctrine.

The difference between hypothetical situations is, you were asked as opposed to announcing it. I think someone who comes up to me and says that my coursework is bull is confrontational and would detract from the rest of the class. It is like a challenge to prove them wrong. I don't need that sort of drama. For everyone else, there might be a chance.

FloydA:The students who choose to ignore the explanations may not be "stupid," per se, but they are choosing to remain uninformed, so they are certainly "unwise." An inability to process information is distinct from an unwillingness to do so, IMO.

Fair enough, but the end result is generally the same: any transfer of knowledge will be lost. So from a high level standpoint, I'd have no qualms lumping them together.

Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

wippit:Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

If we had dog genetics well mapped (idk if we do) you would be able to tell them apart, but that doesn't make them different species. They are still chemically interfertile, are mechanically able to breed(albiet with difficulty) and will produce fertile offspring. Subspecies at most.

wippit:Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

They're close enough to be considered the same species: you could even interbreed them if you could overcome the mechanical problems inherent in the size difference. There are some consistent genetic differences between the two breeds, but they're roughly analogous to the consistent differences you'd find between two humans of different ethnicities: enough to look different, but not much else.

Dinjiin:The difference between hypothetical situations is, you were asked as opposed to announcing it. I think someone who comes up to me and says that my coursework is bull is confrontational and would detract from the rest of the class. It is like a challenge to prove them wrong. I don't need that sort of drama. For everyone else, there might be a chance.

Maybe what you're talking about and what I'm talking about are different. I'm talking about these students and the idea (from what I read in the article) that it doesn't sound like they were truthfully educated by a scientist but more like someone taught them the theory while teaching them how to argue against it. They weren't causing drama and a lot of people in this thread are projecting.

And about me, I know I had some moments at the end of classes when my opinion or belief of something was absolutely upended and that I had to accept the new facts.

wippit:Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Nope they are the same species but a different breed.

Taxonomy is a bugger and exactly what a species is can be defined in any number of ways. Using genotype to classify species is less common than using phenotype - ie two creatures are the same species if they can produce young that can reproduce.

Because they're evolving into something else or going extinct. Stick around for millions of years and you'll find out what happens. That's a very easy question for evolutionary theory to answer: things are always evolving.

wippit:Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Not separate species but they should be able to tell big dog from little dog. There was a study a few years ago about the specific gene in dogs that regulates size

satanorsanta:wippit: Tigger:Hate to break it to you but there's a genetic difference between a German shepherd and ANOTHER GERMAN SHEPHERD

Let me rephrase the question.

If I gave you the genetic code for a German Shepherd, and the genetic code for a Toy Poodle, would someone be able to make a 100% statement as to which is which? Or would the result each simply be "domesticated dog"

IE: would they be classified as separate species?

Not separate species but they should be able to tell big dog from little dog. There was a study a few years ago about the specific gene in dogs that regulates size

The pertinent issue is that you have to have linked that gene to a phenotypic effect.

You cant just eyeball a string of A C T and G and go "yep different species"

Science believes in evolution and you are in a science class. You will be taught the theory of evolution in this class. If your religion does not believe in evolution, your religion is free to teach that, but not in this class. This is a science class.

DAD 20165:I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

DAD 20165:I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

whatshisname:DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

ghall3:vactech: I always find it amazing that even from a very young age kids KNOW that God exists, exists in a state of absolute isness. Beyond time, beyond space. God creates infinite reality, finite reality. He is beyond both. Beyond limitation.

Even from a young age kids KNOW santa claus exists, beyond time beyond space, beyond limitation to deliver presents to themThen we grow up and realize that was just a social construct designed to deceive us.

Sounds familiar....

pfft!

I'm going to ignore any point you may be trying to assert here, and instead suggest that further comments of this type include a reference to a unforeseeable, enchanted cloud sorcerer.

whatshisname:DAD 20165: I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.Science and religion are not opposed science is just too young to understand. I heard this quote somewhere and I believe it will eventually be a truism

Evolution is a fact. It's how it happened that's a theory.

You're confusing the nomenclature. Suffice it to say that Evolution is both a Scientific Theory and a Fact.

If you're teaching a class on evolution, then teach evolution. Don't go out of your way to bring religion into it by asking retarded questions like "how do you reconcile your beliefs with evolution". The only thing you accomplish is to put the religious folks into a defensive mode and make them more difficult to teach. Just teach your course material without the anti-religious crusade, and those students who dismiss your course material and evidence based on their beliefs, will fail the course and weed themselves out of the pool of qualified scientists that graduate.

DAD 20165:I'm not saying it's not fact but it seems to me if people were confident in evolution it would be the laws of evolution not still a theory.

It's not a matter of confidence; it's a matter of how direct the experience we have with it is. Facts are data, while theories are interpretations of that data (specifically, interpretations that stand up under testing; interpretations that haven't been tested are hypotheses).

Evolution is a theory: an interpretation of the facts at hand that has, so far, stood up under the testing we've put it to. To "promote" it to a fact, we'd have to see one species split off from another in the lab as it happens, but evolution happens over such large time scales that this isn't currently practical (and might never be).